# C_2019312EN.01003201.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/32

---

Action brought on 5 July 2019 — Vodafone Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-491/19)

(2019/C 312/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Vodafone Group plc (Newbury, United Kingdom), Vodafone Consolidated Holdings Ltd (Newbury), Vodafone Finance UK Ltd (Newbury) and Vodafone Jersey Dollar Holdings Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: J. Gardiner, QC, I. Taylor, M. Lane and J. Holland, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul in whole or in part the Commission’s decision C(2019) 2526 final of 2 April 2019 in case SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in whole or in part the Commission’s decision C(2019) 2526 final of 2 April 2019 in case SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;

| — | in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state adequate reasons and has erred in law by finding that the controlled foreign companies (CFC) rules are the relevant reference system. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state adequate reasons and has erred in law by finding that the controlled foreign companies (CFC) rules are the relevant reference system.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in fact and in law and has failed to state adequate reasons in finding that the group financing exemption (GFE) constitutes a derogation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in fact and in law and has failed to state adequate reasons in finding that the group financing exemption (GFE) constitutes a derogation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made a manifest error of assessment and has failed to state adequate reasons in finding that the GFE, in so far as it relates to UK significant people functions, is not justified and therefore is selective. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made a manifest error of assessment and has failed to state adequate reasons in finding that the GFE, in so far as it relates to UK significant people functions, is not justified and therefore is selective.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in law and in fact and has failed to provide reasons in finding that the GFE constitutes an advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in law and in fact and has failed to provide reasons in finding that the GFE constitutes an advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in law in finding that some persons entitled to the GFE received an advantage compared to the situation without applying the GFE. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in law in finding that some persons entitled to the GFE received an advantage compared to the situation without applying the GFE.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state adequate reasons and has made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that a ‘CFC charge’ that is levied on genuinely established EU companies is compliant with the EU principle of freedom of establishment. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state adequate reasons and has made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that a ‘CFC charge’ that is levied on genuinely established EU companies is compliant with the EU principle of freedom of establishment.

---